Yoma 29b — the Talmud in English

Let us return it,

the handful to the vessel in which the meal-offering is placed,

and let us return and take its handful by day,

and let us again take a handful from the meal-offering by day, in fitness!

And if so, why did the father of Rabbi Avin say in the name of the beraita that a meal-offering whose handful was taken at night must be burned? [For understanding the depth of the question, see the note].

And we answer:

He,

the father of Rabbi Avin,

taught it to him,

he taught us the words of the beraita.

And he

also

said it to him,

he resolved it on his own initiative:

For this reason it must be burned, since

service vessels sanctify

what is inside them

even

if they placed inside them something

not in its time

not at the time of its service].

And therefore, one took the handful from the meal-offering at night and placed the handful into a service vessel; although night is not the time of the service of taking the handful, nevertheless the vessel sanctifies the handful inside it, and imposes upon it the designation “handful” [which must be offered upon the altar].

And consequently, since the designation “handful” has taken effect upon this, the designation “remainder” of the meal-offering has taken effect upon what remains from the meal-offering [which is eaten by the priests].

Therefore, if he returns the handful into the remainder of the meal-offering, the mixture will not return and receive the designation “unseparated produce” [a meal-offering from which the handful was not separated is called “unseparated produce”]; rather, it will be a mixture of “handful” and “remainder,” mixed with one another. And therefore it is impossible to return and take a second handful from the mixture. And therefore the meal-offering must be burned.

He raised an objection:

the members of the academy brought a contradiction to the words of the father of Rabbi Avin from the following beraita:

One who consecrates fine flour for a meal-offering: the fine flour is not sanctified with bodily sanctity like an offering, but with monetary sanctity alone. Only after he places the fine flour into a service vessel does the fine flour become sanctified with bodily sanctity and receive the status of an offering.

And we learned in a beraita concerning this:

This is the general rule: everything

that

is offered by day

alone [such as meal-offerings, frankincense, the blood of offerings, and the incense]—

is sanctified

with bodily sanctity if it was placed in a service vessel

by day

alone. But if it was placed in it at night, it is not sanctified with bodily sanctity.

And everything that is offered at night—

is sanctified at night.

Mahari”b Ranschburg deleted this sentence; see Meiri].

And everything that is offered both by day and at night

such as the libation meal-offering, which may also be offered at night]—

is sanctified both

if it was placed in a service vessel

by day, and both

if it was placed in it

at night.

At any rate it teaches,

in any event we learned in the beraita:

everything that is offered by day—

is sanctified by day!

And it implies: specifically

by day, not,

indeed it is sanctified. But if it was placed in a service vessel

at night—

it

is not

sanctified! And this is not in accordance with the words of the father of Rabbi Avin, who said that service vessels sanctify even at a time not appointed for offering!

And we answer:

perhaps,

the words of the father of Rabbi Avin were stated only concerning the disqualifications through which this offering can become disqualified from the time it was sanctified in a service vessel, and this is the explanation of the words of the beraita:

Everything that is offered by day—

is not sanctified

at night

to be offered.

For if it was placed in a service vessel at night, it does not receive complete bodily sanctity, since it cannot be offered until it is placed in a service vessel by day.

But

it

is sanctified

partially, with regard

to becoming disqualified

through the disqualifications specific to an offering.

For example: if one who had immersed that day or one lacking atonement touched it, it becomes disqualified through their touch. Likewise, if it went outside the Temple, it becomes disqualified and is called “that which went outside.” And likewise, if it remained overnight until dawn, it becomes disqualified through remaining overnight.

And this is specifically because it was sanctified in a service vessel; but as long as it was not placed in a service vessel, it is like ordinary produce, which does not become disqualified through these matters.

And therefore, even the handful that was taken at night, although night is not the time for taking a handful, and it cannot become sanctified at night in a service vessel so as to be fit for offering, nevertheless it receives the designation “handful” with regard to becoming disqualified through remaining overnight, and the like.

And likewise, what remained from the meal-offering received the designation “remainder,” and it is impossible to return and take a handful from there. And the entire meal-offering must be burned.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection

from the Mishna, which contains a contradiction to the words of the father of Rabbi Avin.

For so we learned in the Mishna:

He arranged

on the table in the Temple

the bread,

the showbread,

and the bowls,

of frankincense that come with the bread,

after Shabbat,

and not on Shabbat, thereby transgressing what is stated [in Leviticus 24:7] concerning the showbread: “On every Shabbat day, on every Shabbat day, he shall arrange it before the Lord continually.”

And he offered the bowls

of frankincense

on Shabbat,

after placing them.

And it turned out that the bread and the bowls remained on the table for fewer than seven days.

The law of the showbread and the bowls is that they remain on the table from this Shabbat until the following Shabbat; then the bowls are offered, and through the offering of the bowls the bread becomes permitted for consumption by the priests.

Disqualified

is the offering of the bowls. Since the bowls are “lacking time,” having not remained seven days on the table, the bread was not permitted for consumption by the priests. Tosafot Yeshanim.

What should he do

with the showbread in order to permit it for consumption?

He should leave it

on the table until

the following Shabbat,

after the offering. And he should also leave two new bowls of frankincense. And it turns out that the bread remained on the table for more than seven days.

And the bread is not disqualified by this, since

even

if

the arrangement

of the bread and the frankincense

stood on the table for many days [more than from one Shabbat to the next]

there is nothing in this,

and the bread is not disqualified by this.

And afterward, on the second Shabbat, he offers the bowls of frankincense and distributes the bread to the priests.

And according to the words of the father of Rabbi Avin, that service vessels sanctify even at a time not appointed for them, this is difficult:

And why?

How can they leave the bread until the following Shabbat and eat it, and why does the bread not become disqualified because of its being placed on the table in the middle of the week?

But surely

the arrangement of the bread should

be sanctified

immediately, at the time it is placed on the table after Shabbat,

and become disqualified,

because at the time it was sanctified it is “lacking time”!

And from here, service vessels do not sanctify at a time not appointed for them; and this contradicts the words of the father of Rabbi Avin!

Rava said: The one who raises an objection,

Rabbi Zeira, who came to reject the words of the father of Rabbi Avin from the Mishna—

raises a sound objection,

for he presented a good and strong difficulty against the words of the father of Rabbi Avin,

but

nevertheless it is impossible to reject the words of the father of Rabbi Avin and say that they are erroneous words.

For

the father of Rabbi Avin too

did not state his own words, but

stated a teaching,

for he stated his words in the name of a beraita. And we must reconcile the words of the Mishna and the beraita, so that they do not contradict one another.

And therefore one must say that service vessels do not sanctify at a time not appointed for them, and nevertheless service vessels sanctify at night, as follows:

And he reasons,

the tannai cited by the father of Rabbi Avin:

night—

is not

called

“lacking time.”

Since night is part of the day that follows it, and both of them are on the same day,

therefore it is considered as though he took a handful from the meal-offering on the day appropriate for it.

And it is sanctified with regard to becoming disqualified, except that offering is not valid at night.

But

day—

is “lacking time”!

And therefore, one who places the showbread on the table after Shabbat during the day: since its time is not on that day, sanctity does not take effect upon it at all, even with regard to becoming disqualified.

And we ask: indeed, we resolved that the bread is not sanctified on the table at the time they placed it there during the day after Shabbat, because it is “lacking time,” since its time is not on that day. But it is still difficult:

When twilight arrives,

when the twilight of Friday night arrives, the bread is fit to be sanctified on Shabbat. And if so,

it should be sanctified

the arrangement of the bread on that night, for night is not considered “lacking time.”

And become disqualified

the arrangement of the bread, because the bread was arranged at night; and when morning arrives, the bread becomes disqualified through remaining overnight [Rashi].

He said

he explained

Ravina:

It is speaking of a beraita,

that it was arranged earlier

on Friday evening, before it became dark,

and they removed it

the bread from the table; therefore, the bread was not sanctified then, and they returned and placed it there in the morning.

Mar Zutra, and some say

[or perhaps]

Rav Ashi said

another explanation:

even say

even if you say that it is speaking

of a case in which they did not arrange it earlier and remove it

before Shabbat, nevertheless the bread is not sanctified on Shabbat night so as to become disqualified.

Since they arranged it not according to its mitzva,

with a deficiency of time [they arranged it on the table on the other days of the week and not on Shabbat]—

the

bread lying on the table on Shabbat night

becomes like that which the monkey arranged

without his knowledge.

Just as, if the monkey placed the bread on the table without his knowledge, the bread is not sanctified so as to become disqualified, so too, when one arranges the bread on the other days of the week not according to its mitzva and Shabbat night arrives, the bread is considered as though it had been arranged on its own, and it is not sanctified then [and on the following day, on Shabbat, he must remove the bread from the table and arrange it again].

We learned in the Mishnah:

This was the principle in the Temple

everyone who relieves himself requires immersion, and everyone who urinates requires the sanctification of hands and feet.

And we raised it as an objection:

Granted,

it is well understood that one who urinates requires the sanctification of

feet, because

drops splash onto them,

splashes

of urine, and he must wash them.

But

the sanctification of

hands—

what is the reason?

What is the reason that he must wash them?

Rabbi Abba said: This is to say,

one can learn from the words of the Mishnah: